Hawks sign & trade Milsap

[skimaskway23]

47 minutes ago, Alex said:

It's not ever going to happen though.  Certain teams just don't have it in their DNA and the Hawks are one of them. 

Lol at DNA. Chicago sure has showed that DNA since jordan left. Dallas had that DNA the ONE time they won right? 

Sell that bullshit narrative to someone else.

[skimaskway23]

42 minutes ago, BrazilianHawk said:

Some of us (the sane ones) understand this is entertainment and sports. Not all teams can win. All of us want the team to win someday, but some of us don't really care about losing in the playoffs. You've got to be in the playoffs if you want to win.

There is no guarantee the Hawks will do better than the Kings in this "rebuild". We could be out of the playoffs for 10+ years. Who's to say we won't? The insane ones will now watch the Hawks rooting for them to lose so we can finally land the basketball Jesus who will take this franchise to the promised land. Because it worked really well the last times they did it.

 

I hope you don't live your life in that same fashion. Content with mediocrity and happy being complacent. 

Some of us don't set low goals for ourselves. Every season we don't win a championship is a failure.

You not happy with the moves...find another team to root for. This tank is happening no matter how much you cry and whine about it.

[BrazilianHawk]

46 minutes ago, skimaskway23 said:

I hope you don't live your life in that same fashion. Content with mediocrity and happy being complacent. 

Some of us don't set low goals for ourselves. Every season we don't win a championship is a failure.

You not happy with the moves...find another team to root for. This tank is happening no matter how much you cry and whine about it.

LOL. You are the one who is happy with the tank and with being a loser for one more decade. Not everyone will win. I'm OK with being good. You are OK with being bad with hopes of being good. That's a loser mentality. Think again.

This is my team and I have the right to speak myself. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore me. Just don't give me any of this condescending crap. You are not better than anyone in here.

[hazer]

5 minutes ago, BrazilianHawk said:

LOL. You are the one who is happy with the tank and with being a loser for one more decade. Not everyone will win. I'm OK with being good. You are OK with being bad with hopes of being good. That's a loser mentality. Think again.

This is my team and I have the right to speak myself. If you don't like it, feel free to ignore me. Just don't give me any of this condescending crap. You are not better than anyone in here.

Problem is, this is complete hyperbole. There is no way that a guy who had a hand in turning GSW from a joke to a dynasty in only 7 years, a team that was in worse shape at the beginning of those 7 years than the Hawks were before he arrived (his words, and the consensus), will take over a decade to approach that here. That's just nonsense. And don't kid yourself that Schlenky wasn't a part of the process that made that happen there. It may take 5 years (worth it), but this "decade" crap is laughable. You and @KB21 need to wake up about that, it's tired...   

[phoostal]

1 minute ago, hazer said:

Problem is, this is complete hyperbole. There is no way that a guy who had a hand in turning GSW from a joke to a dynasty in only 7 years, a team that was in worse shape at the beginning of those 7 years than the Hawks were before he arrived (his words, and the consensus), will take over a decade to approach that here. That's just nonsense. And don't kid yourself that Schlenky wasn't a part of the process that made that happen there. It may take 5 years (worth it), but this "decade" crap is laughable. You and @KB21 need to wake up about that, it's tired...   

To be honest no one knows how long it'll take

[BrazilianHawk]

We'll see. One of us will be wrong.

[hazer]

YeeEESS.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

5 hours ago, Dolfan23 said:

In discussing the Dwight Howard trade prior to the NBA Draft on Thursday evening, general manager Travis Schlenk was asked if the team is planning to rebuild and he pushed back on that notion. “No. Our goal is still to be competitive,” Schlenk said. Being competitive and increasing our flexibility. That's still where we are. But we're not in a rebuild phase."

Schlenk also began his address to the assembled media by emphasizing flexibility as the back drop for the Howard trade, despite the less than enthusiastic return. “Like I've maintained from the beginning,” Schlenk said. “Our number one goal is to maintain our flexibility as we work to get this franchise going in the direction we want it to. This trade helps us, we believe, accomplish long-term and short-term flexibility.”

“We want to be exciting,” Schlenk told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “We are going to play an exciting brand of basketball. We want to be competitive. We want fans to show up every night thinking we have a chance to win. Fans in Philly, I don’t think they felt that way. That’s not our goal. If we make the playoffs, great. If we miss out one year, it’s not the end of the world. We just have a chance to get a better player. Our goal is to be competitive.”

What we did in Golden State is what we are trying to do here,” Schlenk said. “We never really were terrible. We were winning 30-some games, staying competitive, so when you get the last month of the season you are in the playoff hunt. But when you get your draft picks, you’ve got to be right. We did an unbelievable job in Golden State when you talk about Steph Curry. Ekpe Udoh, we didn’t do great on that one. But then Klay Thompson followed up with Harrison Barnes. Three out of four years, we got an NBA player. We feel good about getting John (Collins) at 19 this year. Taurean (Prince) last year for these guys. We’ve got a base.

“Again, we are trying to be competitive. The Philly model is not our model. We are going to continue to add guys who help us be competitive but are also on deals that allow us to have flexibility.”

Just my take on the Schlenk statement after trading Dwight.

 

Green = most people would see those words or statements as being positive.

Yellow = most people would see those words or statements as being neutral or viewed with caution.

Red = most people would see those words or statements as being negative.

 

The problem with his statement, is that he said the word "competitive" 7 times.  And I have to put that word in yellow, because he uses it almost like he's saying . . "we just want to be good enough for fans to think that we can win, even if I don't care if we win or lose."

 

Here's the definition of "competitive":

( adj )

- well suited for competition, having a piece that makes for successful competition

- having a strong desire to compete or to succeed

 

As of this moment, does the actions of the GM fit this definition?

 

Now, that definition has the word "succeed" in its description.  So what does "succeed" mean?

( verb )

1. to happen or terminate according to desire; turn out successfully; have the desired result:

Our efforts succeeded.

 

2.  to thrive, prosper, grow, or the like:

Grass will not succeed in this dry soil.

 

3.  to accomplish what is attempted or intended:

We succeeded in our efforts to start the car.

 

4. to attain success in some popularly recognized form, as wealth orstanding:

The class voted him the one most likely to succeed.

5.  to follow or replace another by descent, election, appointment, etc .(often followed by to).

 

6.  to come next after something else in an order or series.

 

 

 

So what is Schlenk's true definition of being "competitive"?  And what is "success" to him?

 

If a fan is comfortable with his initial quote after the Dwight trade, OK.

 

But if a fan wants a clear cut answer to the two questions I just stated, and they feel he hasn't answered those questions, they have every right to question his every move.

 

[TheNorthCydeRises]

5 hours ago, EazyRoc said:

Nah. Dwight rarely dominated the post even in his prime. He doesn't have reliable post moves or shooting touch. Where Dwight would've excelled (imo) is catching the ball moving towards the basket, but Dwight has rejected that since his LA days. Bud just tried to maximize the talent we had and when you really think about it, this team was severely deficient in offensive talent. We've been short on offense since Joe started to decline. We were going to suck pretty bad the year after next (again imo) and stuck with about 60 mil per tied into a front court in their mid-30s.

Vol's point was that Bud didn't adjust his coaching style to fit the talent that he did have.   And I disagree that he tried to maximize our talent.  He tried to stick with the 2014 - 15 formula, even when his top gun ( Korver ) was struggling ( compared to how he normally shoots the ball).  The Hawks took 2137 three's last year at a 34% clip.  That's only 15 attempts less than the 2014 - 15 squad that shot 38% from 3.  And everyone knows that the 2014 - 15 Hawks thrived on Korver's historic shooting, along with Demarre shooting close to 40%.

This season, Korver did get to above 40% from 3, by the time he was traded, but his looks became fewer and less impactful.  But other than the sporadic shooting from Dunlevavy and Moose, none of the rotation guys shot over 36% from 3.  It's a big difference from being the #2 three point shooting team in the league by percentage, from the #23 three point shooting team in the league, like we were last season.

Baze was struggling, but still getting playing time and plenty of shots.   The kids were rotting on the bench, despite the team being in a straight freefall in late Nov - early Dec.  Delaney was masquerading as a viable option at PG.   You can't be a mediocre shooting 3 point team, but expect your team to make shots on a nightly basis.  And then when they don't make shots, blame the players.

And no matter how much people hated Dwight, the fact remains that on last year's team, he was one of our most reliable and consistent offensive options.  He was one of the strengths of the team by just about every offensive and defensive metric.  While he didn't fully embrace the offensive scheme, he was still underutilized, especially in the playoffs.

[ShooterSays]

Does anyone know where this S&T stands? Been away most of the day. It's not official yet right?

[EazyRoc]

1 hour ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Vol's point was that Bud didn't adjust his coaching style to fit the talent that he did have.   And I disagree that he tried to maximize our talent.  He tried to stick with the 2014 - 15 formula, even when his top gun ( Korver ) was struggling ( compared to how he normally shoots the ball).  The Hawks took 2137 three's last year at a 34% clip.  That's only 15 attempts less than the 2014 - 15 squad that shot 38% from 3.  And everyone knows that the 2014 - 15 Hawks thrived on Korver's historic shooting, along with Demarre shooting close to 40%.

This season, Korver did get to above 40% from 3, by the time he was traded, but his looks became fewer and less impactful.  But other than the sporadic shooting from Dunlevavy and Moose, none of the rotation guys shot over 36% from 3.  It's a big difference from being the #2 three point shooting team in the league by percentage, from the #23 three point shooting team in the league, like we were last season.

Baze was struggling, but still getting playing time and plenty of shots.   The kids were rotting on the bench, despite the team being in a straight freefall in late Nov - early Dec.  Delaney was masquerading as a viable option at PG.   You can't be a mediocre shooting 3 point team, but expect your team to make shots on a nightly basis.  And then when they don't make shots, blame the players.

And no matter how much people hated Dwight, the fact remains that on last year's team, he was one of our most reliable and consistent offensive options.  He was one of the strengths of the team by just about every offensive and defensive metric.  While he didn't fully embrace the offensive scheme, he was still underutilized, especially in the playoffs.

I'm of the opinion that what made Dwight effective was the efficiency of his touches. He also was definitely not a strength (offensively) by most offensive metrics. To address your point regarding Bud, I just just don't understand what else he could've done. We just didn't have talent offensively so you have to rely on ball movement and shooting to score. We can't run any kind of offense through Dwight. He's only average (at best) on the block. Bud doesn't give a lot of young guys PT and that can be frustrating when the guys ahead of them are stinking it up. The guy can't shoot FTs so you almost have to bench him late in close games.